laborproductivitywell-beingeconomicspolicy
Countries should move toward a four-day (32-hour) standard workweek with no pay cut.
The UK’s multi-firm pilot reported steady or higher productivity, lower burnout and sick days, and most firms opting to continue the four-day week.
Iceland’s government-backed trials maintained or improved performance with better well-being, and helped expand the right to shorter hours.
Global reviews find reduced hours can support work–life balance and retention when combined with workflow changes.
Effects vary by sector: continuous-service areas may need extra staffing or overtime to maintain coverage, raising costs.
Implementation can be difficult for SMEs if processes or automation cannot offset reduced hours.
Many positive results come from voluntary pilots with motivated firms, so generalizing to all employers is uncertain.
Proponents cite pilots in the UK and Iceland showing maintained productivity and better well-being, arguing a 32-hour standard can work with process redesign. Skeptics note sector differences, SME constraints, and that pilot results may not generalize, favoring case-by-case adoption over blanket mandates.
Working time fell from six to five days over the 20th century. Interest in a four-day week surged after Iceland’s public-sector trials and the UK’s large multi-firm pilot. International reviews emphasize that outcomes depend on sector, scheduling, and workflow changes.